The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A website like the one from Chelsea, Manchester

For the 2nd time we have been asked to make a quote for the design and programing of a website for a professional football team (soccer that is) . Back in 97 I had done something similar and despite that was as a hobby it was pretty complete, that is to say I have some knowledge on what needs to be done.

The funny side of this story is that in both opportunities the people we talked to said that "what we want is based upon Chelsea, Arsenal, Ajax Amsterdam, Manchester United and Liverpool FC websites". And then comes the list of functions they are expecting. We hit a snag when talking about budget. Figures were discussed but they are very low considered to the amount of work involved.

I guess it's hard to find out that information but we were wondering a few things about the top soccer team's website: what is a very rough budget for this sort of website to build and to run ? how many people were involved in the development and are working in the day-to-day activities to keep them updated ?

That's impossible for anyone to know, or guess. My assumption is that to create the site they spent at least $10000 (I know, probably very short). Regarding the amount of people to run it... it depends on the hosting they have and which information needs to be updated and the frequency. At least 3 persons (one for the server and 1-2 persons to add information, and who knows? maybe an editor to check that the info is correct)